Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1401 | control, N = 711 | treatment, N = 691 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 138 | 50.91 ± 12.56 (25 - 74) | 51.44 ± 12.37 (25 - 74) | 50.37 ± 12.82 (28 - 73) | 0.620 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 140 | 0.916 | |||
f | 107 (76%) | 54 (76%) | 53 (77%) | ||
m | 33 (24%) | 17 (24%) | 16 (23%) | ||
occupation | 140 | 0.641 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.4%) | 2 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 17 (12%) | 8 (11%) | 9 (13%) | ||
homemaker | 12 (8.6%) | 5 (7.0%) | 7 (10%) | ||
other | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
part_time | 25 (18%) | 12 (17%) | 13 (19%) | ||
retired | 38 (27%) | 19 (27%) | 19 (28%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (5.0%) | 4 (5.6%) | 3 (4.3%) | ||
student | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
unemploy | 33 (24%) | 20 (28%) | 13 (19%) | ||
marital | 140 | 0.817 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
divore | 15 (11%) | 10 (14%) | 5 (7.2%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
married | 39 (28%) | 20 (28%) | 19 (28%) | ||
none | 70 (50%) | 33 (46%) | 37 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.1%) | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
widow | 8 (5.7%) | 4 (5.6%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
edu | 140 | 0.249 | |||
bachelor | 35 (25%) | 13 (18%) | 22 (32%) | ||
diploma | 26 (19%) | 17 (24%) | 9 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 4 (2.9%) | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 12 (8.6%) | 5 (7.0%) | 7 (10%) | ||
primary | 9 (6.4%) | 3 (4.2%) | 6 (8.7%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 16 (11%) | 9 (13%) | 7 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 32 (23%) | 19 (27%) | 13 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 6 (4.3%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
fam_income | 140 | 0.981 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.3%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
12001_14000 | 7 (5.0%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
14001_16000 | 7 (5.0%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 6 (4.3%) | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
20001_above | 27 (19%) | 15 (21%) | 12 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 20 (14%) | 11 (15%) | 9 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 14 (10%) | 6 (8.5%) | 8 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 12 (8.6%) | 7 (9.9%) | 5 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 10 (7.1%) | 4 (5.6%) | 6 (8.7%) | ||
below_2000 | 27 (19%) | 14 (20%) | 13 (19%) | ||
medication | 140 | 123 (88%) | 62 (87%) | 61 (88%) | 0.845 |
onset_duration | 137 | 15.23 ± 10.25 (0 - 56) | 15.87 ± 10.92 (0 - 56) | 14.55 ± 9.51 (0 - 35) | 0.452 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 135 | 35.90 ± 13.95 (10 - 65) | 35.40 ± 12.70 (10 - 61) | 36.42 ± 15.23 (14 - 65) | 0.673 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1401 | control, N = 711 | treatment, N = 691 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 140 | 3.20 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 3.27 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.12 (1 - 5) | 0.492 |
recovery_stage_b | 140 | 17.97 ± 2.78 (8 - 24) | 17.90 ± 2.93 (8 - 24) | 18.04 ± 2.64 (13 - 24) | 0.764 |
ras_confidence | 140 | 30.03 ± 5.14 (15 - 45) | 29.83 ± 4.88 (15 - 40) | 30.23 ± 5.42 (18 - 45) | 0.646 |
ras_willingness | 140 | 11.79 ± 2.09 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.07 (5 - 15) | 11.93 ± 2.12 (7 - 15) | 0.455 |
ras_goal | 140 | 17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25) | 17.14 ± 2.89 (11 - 24) | 17.64 ± 3.28 (11 - 25) | 0.343 |
ras_reliance | 140 | 13.20 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 12.99 ± 2.81 (5 - 18) | 13.42 ± 3.08 (7 - 20) | 0.385 |
ras_domination | 140 | 9.92 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 10.17 ± 2.32 (3 - 15) | 9.67 ± 2.51 (3 - 15) | 0.221 |
symptom | 139 | 29.94 ± 9.39 (14 - 56) | 29.93 ± 9.61 (14 - 55) | 29.94 ± 9.23 (15 - 56) | 0.994 |
Unknown | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
slof_work | 140 | 22.51 ± 4.78 (10 - 30) | 22.85 ± 4.38 (13 - 30) | 22.17 ± 5.16 (10 - 30) | 0.408 |
slof_relationship | 140 | 25.20 ± 6.03 (9 - 35) | 24.90 ± 6.05 (9 - 35) | 25.51 ± 6.05 (11 - 35) | 0.555 |
satisfaction | 140 | 20.58 ± 7.23 (5 - 35) | 19.99 ± 6.80 (5 - 33) | 21.19 ± 7.65 (5 - 35) | 0.327 |
mhc_emotional | 140 | 10.94 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.69 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.20 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 0.428 |
mhc_social | 140 | 15.08 ± 5.61 (5 - 30) | 14.75 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 15.42 ± 5.66 (5 - 29) | 0.480 |
mhc_psychological | 140 | 21.94 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 21.80 ± 6.11 (7 - 36) | 22.09 ± 6.88 (6 - 36) | 0.796 |
resilisnce | 140 | 16.69 ± 4.72 (6 - 30) | 16.25 ± 4.20 (6 - 24) | 17.13 ± 5.20 (6 - 30) | 0.274 |
social_provision | 140 | 13.56 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.11 ± 2.65 (5 - 20) | 14.03 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 0.060 |
els_value_living | 140 | 16.96 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.59 ± 2.94 (6 - 22) | 17.35 ± 3.37 (5 - 25) | 0.159 |
els_life_fulfill | 140 | 12.75 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 12.37 ± 3.28 (5 - 19) | 13.14 ± 3.59 (4 - 20) | 0.182 |
els | 140 | 29.71 ± 6.01 (9 - 45) | 28.96 ± 5.53 (11 - 38) | 30.49 ± 6.42 (9 - 45) | 0.131 |
social_connect | 140 | 26.46 ± 9.51 (8 - 48) | 26.73 ± 9.24 (8 - 48) | 26.19 ± 9.84 (8 - 48) | 0.736 |
shs_agency | 140 | 14.36 ± 5.17 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 14.77 ± 5.57 (3 - 24) | 0.365 |
shs_pathway | 140 | 16.06 ± 4.06 (4 - 24) | 15.75 ± 3.87 (5 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.25 (4 - 24) | 0.349 |
shs | 140 | 30.43 ± 8.84 (7 - 48) | 29.72 ± 8.27 (8 - 45) | 31.16 ± 9.40 (7 - 48) | 0.337 |
esteem | 140 | 12.61 ± 1.65 (9 - 20) | 12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.58 ± 1.68 (10 - 20) | 0.808 |
mlq_search | 140 | 14.84 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 14.70 ± 3.32 (6 - 21) | 14.97 ± 3.74 (3 - 21) | 0.656 |
mlq_presence | 140 | 13.51 ± 4.21 (3 - 21) | 13.38 ± 3.80 (4 - 21) | 13.65 ± 4.63 (3 - 21) | 0.704 |
mlq | 140 | 28.35 ± 6.94 (6 - 42) | 28.08 ± 6.26 (10 - 40) | 28.62 ± 7.61 (6 - 42) | 0.648 |
empower | 140 | 19.29 ± 4.28 (6 - 30) | 18.97 ± 4.17 (11 - 30) | 19.61 ± 4.40 (6 - 30) | 0.380 |
ismi_resistance | 140 | 14.55 ± 2.53 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.21 (10 - 20) | 14.62 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.737 |
ismi_discrimation | 140 | 11.59 ± 3.15 (5 - 20) | 11.96 ± 3.02 (5 - 20) | 11.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.165 |
sss_affective | 140 | 9.92 ± 3.55 (3 - 18) | 10.03 ± 3.51 (3 - 18) | 9.81 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 0.719 |
sss_behavior | 140 | 9.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 9.89 ± 3.85 (3 - 18) | 9.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 0.480 |
sss_cognitive | 140 | 8.19 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 8.24 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 8.14 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 0.882 |
sss | 140 | 27.78 ± 10.21 (9 - 54) | 28.15 ± 10.26 (9 - 54) | 27.39 ± 10.22 (9 - 54) | 0.660 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.27 | 0.138 | 3.00, 3.54 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.137 | 0.196 | -0.522, 0.248 | 0.486 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.000 | 0.228 | -0.446, 0.446 | 0.999 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.491 | 0.327 | -0.150, 1.13 | 0.137 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.340 | 17.2, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.142 | 0.485 | -0.808, 1.09 | 0.770 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.377 | 0.528 | -1.41, 0.657 | 0.477 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.802 | 0.759 | -0.686, 2.29 | 0.294 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.619 | 28.6, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.401 | 0.881 | -1.33, 2.13 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.695 | 0.735 | -0.747, 2.14 | 0.348 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.12 | 1.059 | -0.954, 3.20 | 0.294 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.249 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.266 | 0.355 | -0.429, 0.961 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.480 | 0.299 | -1.07, 0.107 | 0.114 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.691 | 0.431 | -0.154, 1.54 | 0.114 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.1 | 0.376 | 16.4, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.497 | 0.535 | -0.552, 1.55 | 0.354 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.460 | 0.487 | -1.41, 0.495 | 0.349 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.57 | 0.701 | 0.193, 2.94 | 0.029 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.348 | 12.3, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.434 | 0.495 | -0.536, 1.41 | 0.382 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.335 | 0.397 | -0.443, 1.11 | 0.402 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 0.572 | -0.077, 2.17 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.282 | 9.62, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.502 | 0.401 | -1.29, 0.284 | 0.212 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.314 | 0.416 | -1.13, 0.501 | 0.453 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.42 | 0.599 | 0.248, 2.60 | 0.021 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.117 | 27.7, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.012 | 1.598 | -3.12, 3.14 | 0.994 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.367 | 1.073 | -2.47, 1.74 | 0.733 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 1.546 | -4.21, 1.85 | 0.447 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.565 | 21.7, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.671 | 0.804 | -2.25, 0.905 | 0.405 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.344 | 0.637 | -1.59, 0.904 | 0.591 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.461 | 0.918 | -1.34, 2.26 | 0.617 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.708 | 23.5, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.606 | 1.008 | -1.37, 2.58 | 0.549 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.875 | 0.792 | -2.43, 0.677 | 0.273 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.66 | 1.140 | -0.572, 3.90 | 0.150 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.0 | 0.862 | 18.3, 21.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.20 | 1.228 | -1.20, 3.61 | 0.329 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.548 | 1.047 | -1.50, 2.60 | 0.602 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.580 | 1.508 | -2.38, 3.54 | 0.702 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.450 | 9.81, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.641 | -0.744, 1.77 | 0.425 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.275 | 0.493 | -0.690, 1.24 | 0.578 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.094 | 0.710 | -1.48, 1.30 | 0.895 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.683 | 13.4, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.674 | 0.972 | -1.23, 2.58 | 0.489 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.644 | 0.849 | -1.02, 2.31 | 0.451 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.406 | 1.222 | -2.80, 1.99 | 0.741 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.794 | 20.2, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.284 | 1.131 | -1.93, 2.50 | 0.802 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.438 | 0.969 | -1.46, 2.34 | 0.653 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.276 | 1.396 | -2.46, 3.01 | 0.844 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.549 | 15.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.877 | 0.782 | -0.657, 2.41 | 0.264 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.108 | 0.695 | -1.25, 1.47 | 0.877 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.49 | 1.000 | -0.472, 3.45 | 0.142 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.343 | 12.4, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.916 | 0.489 | -0.042, 1.87 | 0.063 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.524 | 0.457 | -1.42, 0.372 | 0.255 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.697 | 0.658 | -0.593, 1.99 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.379 | 15.8, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.756 | 0.540 | -0.301, 1.81 | 0.163 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.244 | 0.472 | -0.680, 1.17 | 0.607 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.283 | 0.679 | -1.05, 1.61 | 0.679 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.403 | 11.6, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.779 | 0.573 | -0.345, 1.90 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.472 | 0.402 | -0.315, 1.26 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.125 | 0.579 | -1.26, 1.01 | 0.830 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 0.713 | 27.6, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.54 | 1.016 | -0.457, 3.53 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.700 | 0.729 | -0.729, 2.13 | 0.341 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.159 | 1.051 | -1.90, 2.22 | 0.880 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.7 | 1.141 | 24.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.544 | 1.625 | -3.73, 2.64 | 0.738 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 1.192 | -1.17, 3.51 | 0.330 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.69 | 1.717 | -7.06, -0.329 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.612 | 12.8, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.796 | 0.872 | -0.912, 2.50 | 0.362 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.087 | 0.665 | -1.22, 1.39 | 0.897 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.789 | 0.957 | -1.09, 2.67 | 0.413 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.477 | 14.8, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.645 | 0.679 | -0.686, 1.98 | 0.344 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.233 | 0.516 | -0.778, 1.24 | 0.653 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.071 | 0.743 | -1.53, 1.38 | 0.924 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.040 | 27.7, 31.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.44 | 1.481 | -1.46, 4.34 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.324 | 1.081 | -1.79, 2.44 | 0.766 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.694 | 1.556 | -2.36, 3.74 | 0.657 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.185 | 12.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.068 | 0.263 | -0.584, 0.448 | 0.796 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.024 | 0.294 | -0.552, 0.601 | 0.934 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.149 | 0.423 | -0.681, 0.978 | 0.727 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.413 | 13.9, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.267 | 0.588 | -0.885, 1.42 | 0.651 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.199 | 0.583 | -0.944, 1.34 | 0.733 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.243 | 0.839 | -1.89, 1.40 | 0.773 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.497 | 12.4, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.272 | 0.708 | -1.11, 1.66 | 0.701 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.210 | 0.618 | -1.00, 1.42 | 0.735 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.082 | 0.890 | -1.66, 1.83 | 0.927 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.823 | 26.5, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.539 | 1.173 | -1.76, 2.84 | 0.647 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.422 | 1.064 | -1.66, 2.51 | 0.693 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.152 | 1.532 | -3.15, 2.85 | 0.921 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.508 | 18.0, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.637 | 0.723 | -0.781, 2.05 | 0.380 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.245 | 0.539 | -0.811, 1.30 | 0.651 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.513 | 0.776 | -2.03, 1.01 | 0.511 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.296 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.144 | 0.422 | -0.683, 0.972 | 0.733 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.061 | 0.438 | -0.919, 0.798 | 0.890 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.538 | 0.630 | -0.697, 1.77 | 0.395 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.375 | 11.2, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.740 | 0.534 | -1.79, 0.306 | 0.168 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.304 | 0.449 | -1.18, 0.576 | 0.501 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.226 | 0.647 | -1.04, 1.49 | 0.728 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.415 | 9.21, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.217 | 0.592 | -1.38, 0.943 | 0.715 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.139 | 0.485 | -0.811, 1.09 | 0.775 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 0.698 | -2.56, 0.177 | 0.093 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.89 | 0.441 | 9.02, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.453 | 0.628 | -1.68, 0.779 | 0.472 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.013 | 0.524 | -1.04, 1.01 | 0.981 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.727 | 0.754 | -2.21, 0.752 | 0.339 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.24 | 0.440 | 7.38, 9.10 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.095 | 0.626 | -1.32, 1.13 | 0.880 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.680 | 0.513 | -0.325, 1.68 | 0.189 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.37 | 0.738 | -2.82, 0.073 | 0.067 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.202 | 25.8, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.764 | 1.712 | -4.12, 2.59 | 0.656 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.733 | 1.292 | -1.80, 3.26 | 0.573 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.11 | 1.861 | -6.76, 0.536 | 0.099 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.27 (95% CI [3.00, 3.54], t(188) = 23.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.25], t(188) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.02e-04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.45], t(188) = -1.33e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.59e-04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.13], t(188) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.90 (95% CI [17.23, 18.57], t(188) = 52.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.09], t(188) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.66], t(188) = -0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.29], t(188) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.62, 31.04], t(188) = 48.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.13], t(188) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.14], t(188) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.95, 3.20], t(188) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.66 (95% CI [11.17, 12.15], t(188) = 46.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.96], t(188) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.11], t(188) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.54], t(188) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [16.40, 17.88], t(188) = 45.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.55], t(188) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.49], t(188) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [0.19, 2.94], t(188) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.06, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.30, 13.67], t(188) = 37.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.41], t(188) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.11], t(188) = 0.84, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.17], t(188) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.62, 10.72], t(188) = 36.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.28], t(188) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.50], t(188) = -0.76, p = 0.450; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [0.25, 2.60], t(188) = 2.37, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.11, 1.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.93 (95% CI [27.74, 32.12], t(187) = 26.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-3.12, 3.14], t(187) = 7.26e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.74], t(187) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-4.21, 1.85], t(187) = -0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.85 (95% CI [21.74, 23.95], t(188) = 40.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.91], t(188) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.90], t(188) = -0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.26], t(188) = 0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.90 (95% CI [23.51, 26.29], t(188) = 35.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.58], t(188) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.43, 0.68], t(188) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.66, 95% CI [-0.57, 3.90], t(188) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.99 (95% CI [18.30, 21.68], t(188) = 23.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.61], t(188) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.60], t(188) = 0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-2.38, 3.54], t(188) = 0.38, p = 0.700; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.69 (95% CI [9.81, 11.57], t(188) = 23.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.77], t(188) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.24], t(188) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.30], t(188) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.75 (95% CI [13.41, 16.08], t(188) = 21.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.58], t(188) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.31], t(188) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.80, 1.99], t(188) = -0.33, p = 0.740; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.80 (95% CI [20.25, 23.36], t(188) = 27.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.50], t(188) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.34], t(188) = 0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-2.46, 3.01], t(188) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.25 (95% CI [15.18, 17.33], t(188) = 29.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.41], t(188) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.47], t(188) = 0.16, p = 0.876; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.47, 3.45], t(188) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.44, 13.79], t(188) = 38.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(188) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.37], t(188) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.99], t(188) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.59 (95% CI [15.85, 17.33], t(188) = 43.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.81], t(188) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.17], t(188) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.61], t(188) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.58, 13.16], t(188) = 30.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.90], t(188) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.26], t(188) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.01], t(188) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [27.56, 30.36], t(188) = 40.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.46, 3.53], t(188) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.13], t(188) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.22], t(188) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.73 (95% CI [24.50, 28.97], t(188) = 23.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.73, 2.64], t(188) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.17, 3.51], t(188) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.69, 95% CI [-7.06, -0.33], t(188) = -2.15, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [12.77, 15.17], t(188) = 22.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.50], t(188) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.39], t(188) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.67], t(188) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.75 (95% CI [14.81, 16.68], t(188) = 33.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.98], t(188) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.24], t(188) = 0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.38], t(188) = -0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.72 (95% CI [27.68, 31.76], t(188) = 28.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.46, 4.34], t(188) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.44], t(188) = 0.30, p = 0.765; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-2.36, 3.74], t(188) = 0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.29, 13.01], t(188) = 68.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.45], t(188) = -0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.60], t(188) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.98], t(188) = 0.35, p = 0.725; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.70 (95% CI [13.90, 15.51], t(188) = 35.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.42], t(188) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.34], t(188) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.40], t(188) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.41, 14.35], t(188) = 26.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.66], t(188) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.42], t(188) = 0.34, p = 0.734; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.83], t(188) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [26.47, 29.70], t(188) = 34.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.84], t(188) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.66, 2.51], t(188) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-3.15, 2.85], t(188) = -0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [17.98, 19.97], t(188) = 37.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.05], t(188) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.30], t(188) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.01], t(188) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.90, 15.06], t(188) = 48.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.97], t(188) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.80], t(188) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.77], t(188) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.22, 12.69], t(188) = 31.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.31], t(188) = -1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.58], t(188) = -0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.49], t(188) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.03 (95% CI [9.21, 10.84], t(188) = 24.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.94], t(188) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.09], t(188) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.56, 0.18], t(188) = -1.71, p = 0.088; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.02, 10.75], t(188) = 22.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.78], t(188) = -0.72, p = 0.471; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.01], t(188) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.37e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.75], t(188) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.24 (95% CI [7.38, 9.10], t(188) = 18.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.13], t(188) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.68], t(188) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.07], t(188) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.80, 30.51], t(188) = 23.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-4.12, 2.59], t(188) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.26], t(188) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.11, 95% CI [-6.76, 0.54], t(188) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 608.957 | 618.760 | -301.478 | 602.957 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 610.555 | 630.162 | -299.278 | 598.555 | 4.402 | 3 | 0.221 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 952.069 | 961.872 | -473.034 | 946.069 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 956.388 | 975.995 | -472.194 | 944.388 | 1.681 | 3 | 0.641 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,164.852 | 1,174.655 | -579.426 | 1,158.852 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,163.813 | 1,183.420 | -575.907 | 1,151.813 | 7.038 | 3 | 0.071 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 810.251 | 820.054 | -402.125 | 804.251 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 811.758 | 831.365 | -399.879 | 799.758 | 4.493 | 3 | 0.213 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 980.771 | 990.575 | -487.386 | 974.771 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 978.559 | 998.166 | -483.280 | 966.559 | 8.212 | 3 | 0.042 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 943.532 | 953.336 | -468.766 | 937.532 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 936.308 | 955.915 | -462.154 | 924.308 | 13.224 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 879.953 | 889.757 | -436.977 | 873.953 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 878.854 | 898.462 | -433.427 | 866.854 | 7.099 | 3 | 0.069 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,360.446 | 1,370.234 | -677.223 | 1,354.446 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,364.342 | 1,383.918 | -676.171 | 1,352.342 | 2.104 | 3 | 0.551 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,118.093 | 1,127.896 | -556.046 | 1,112.093 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,123.215 | 1,142.822 | -555.607 | 1,111.215 | 0.878 | 3 | 0.831 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,207.212 | 1,217.016 | -600.606 | 1,201.212 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,210.078 | 1,229.685 | -599.039 | 1,198.078 | 3.134 | 3 | 0.371 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,291.330 | 1,301.134 | -642.665 | 1,285.330 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,294.703 | 1,314.310 | -641.352 | 1,282.703 | 2.627 | 3 | 0.453 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,027.262 | 1,037.065 | -510.631 | 1,021.262 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,032.186 | 1,051.793 | -510.093 | 1,020.186 | 1.076 | 3 | 0.783 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,201.448 | 1,211.252 | -597.724 | 1,195.448 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,206.388 | 1,225.995 | -597.194 | 1,194.388 | 1.061 | 3 | 0.787 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,258.102 | 1,267.906 | -626.051 | 1,252.102 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,263.278 | 1,282.885 | -625.639 | 1,251.278 | 0.825 | 3 | 0.844 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,125.083 | 1,134.887 | -559.542 | 1,119.083 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,123.737 | 1,143.344 | -555.868 | 1,111.737 | 7.347 | 3 | 0.062 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 946.852 | 956.655 | -470.426 | 940.852 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 946.126 | 965.733 | -467.063 | 934.126 | 6.726 | 3 | 0.081 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 975.986 | 985.790 | -484.993 | 969.986 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 978.067 | 997.675 | -483.034 | 966.067 | 3.919 | 3 | 0.270 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 977.374 | 987.177 | -485.687 | 971.374 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 979.461 | 999.068 | -483.731 | 967.461 | 3.913 | 3 | 0.271 |
els | null | 3 | 1,202.758 | 1,212.561 | -598.379 | 1,196.758 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,204.028 | 1,223.636 | -596.014 | 1,192.028 | 4.729 | 3 | 0.193 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,388.105 | 1,397.909 | -691.053 | 1,382.105 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,388.307 | 1,407.914 | -688.154 | 1,376.307 | 5.798 | 3 | 0.122 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,147.511 | 1,157.315 | -570.756 | 1,141.511 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,150.562 | 1,170.169 | -569.281 | 1,138.562 | 2.950 | 3 | 0.399 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,048.476 | 1,058.279 | -521.238 | 1,042.476 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,053.267 | 1,072.874 | -520.634 | 1,041.267 | 1.208 | 3 | 0.751 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,348.000 | 1,357.804 | -671.000 | 1,342.000 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,351.863 | 1,371.470 | -669.932 | 1,339.863 | 2.137 | 3 | 0.544 |
esteem | null | 3 | 715.814 | 725.617 | -354.907 | 709.814 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 721.452 | 741.059 | -354.726 | 709.452 | 0.362 | 3 | 0.948 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,017.468 | 1,027.272 | -505.734 | 1,011.468 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,023.196 | 1,042.803 | -505.598 | 1,011.196 | 0.272 | 3 | 0.965 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,077.588 | 1,087.392 | -535.794 | 1,071.588 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,083.073 | 1,102.680 | -535.536 | 1,071.073 | 0.515 | 3 | 0.915 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,277.293 | 1,287.096 | -635.646 | 1,271.293 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,282.865 | 1,302.473 | -635.433 | 1,270.865 | 0.427 | 3 | 0.935 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,070.845 | 1,080.649 | -532.422 | 1,064.845 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,075.823 | 1,095.430 | -531.911 | 1,063.823 | 1.022 | 3 | 0.796 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 894.317 | 904.120 | -444.158 | 888.317 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 898.710 | 918.318 | -443.355 | 886.710 | 1.606 | 3 | 0.658 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 966.505 | 976.309 | -480.253 | 960.505 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 970.205 | 989.812 | -479.103 | 958.205 | 2.300 | 3 | 0.512 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,006.558 | 1,016.362 | -500.279 | 1,000.558 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,007.390 | 1,026.997 | -497.695 | 995.390 | 5.168 | 3 | 0.160 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,029.342 | 1,039.146 | -511.671 | 1,023.342 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,032.472 | 1,052.079 | -510.236 | 1,020.472 | 2.870 | 3 | 0.412 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,027.292 | 1,037.096 | -510.646 | 1,021.292 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,029.374 | 1,048.981 | -508.687 | 1,017.374 | 3.918 | 3 | 0.270 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,409.746 | 1,419.550 | -701.873 | 1,403.746 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,411.514 | 1,431.121 | -699.757 | 1,399.514 | 4.232 | 3 | 0.237 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 71 | 3.27 ± 1.16 | 69 | 3.13 ± 1.16 | 0.486 | 0.144 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 28 | 3.27 ± 1.13 | 0.000 | 26 | 3.62 ± 1.13 | -0.514 | 0.253 | -0.371 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 71 | 17.90 ± 2.87 | 69 | 18.04 ± 2.87 | 0.770 | -0.065 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 28 | 17.52 ± 2.73 | 0.174 | 26 | 18.47 ± 2.72 | -0.196 | 0.205 | -0.435 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 71 | 29.83 ± 5.21 | 69 | 30.23 ± 5.21 | 0.650 | -0.139 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 28 | 30.53 ± 4.41 | -0.240 | 26 | 32.05 ± 4.38 | -0.629 | 0.205 | -0.527 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 71 | 11.66 ± 2.10 | 69 | 11.93 ± 2.10 | 0.455 | -0.226 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 28 | 11.18 ± 1.78 | 0.408 | 26 | 12.14 ± 1.77 | -0.179 | 0.050 | -0.812 |
ras_goal | 1st | 71 | 17.14 ± 3.16 | 69 | 17.64 ± 3.16 | 0.354 | -0.257 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 28 | 16.68 ± 2.78 | 0.238 | 26 | 18.75 ± 2.76 | -0.573 | 0.007 | -1.067 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 71 | 12.99 ± 2.93 | 69 | 13.42 ± 2.93 | 0.382 | -0.280 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 28 | 13.32 ± 2.44 | -0.216 | 26 | 14.80 ± 2.42 | -0.888 | 0.027 | -0.951 |
ras_domination | 1st | 71 | 10.17 ± 2.37 | 69 | 9.67 ± 2.37 | 0.212 | 0.297 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 28 | 9.85 ± 2.21 | 0.186 | 26 | 10.77 ± 2.20 | -0.655 | 0.128 | -0.543 |
symptom | 1st | 71 | 29.93 ± 9.41 | 68 | 29.94 ± 9.41 | 0.994 | -0.003 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 28 | 29.56 ± 7.34 | 0.089 | 26 | 28.39 ± 7.29 | 0.375 | 0.557 | 0.283 |
slof_work | 1st | 71 | 22.85 ± 4.76 | 69 | 22.17 ± 4.76 | 0.405 | 0.270 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 28 | 22.50 ± 3.94 | 0.138 | 26 | 22.29 ± 3.91 | -0.047 | 0.844 | 0.084 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 71 | 24.90 ± 5.97 | 69 | 25.51 ± 5.97 | 0.549 | -0.196 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 28 | 24.03 ± 4.92 | 0.283 | 26 | 26.30 ± 4.89 | -0.255 | 0.091 | -0.734 |
satisfaction | 1st | 71 | 19.99 ± 7.26 | 69 | 21.19 ± 7.26 | 0.329 | -0.292 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 28 | 20.53 ± 6.20 | -0.133 | 26 | 22.32 ± 6.16 | -0.274 | 0.291 | -0.432 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 71 | 10.69 ± 3.79 | 69 | 11.20 ± 3.79 | 0.425 | -0.267 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 28 | 10.97 ± 3.10 | -0.143 | 26 | 11.38 ± 3.08 | -0.095 | 0.619 | -0.218 |
mhc_social | 1st | 71 | 14.75 ± 5.75 | 69 | 15.42 ± 5.75 | 0.489 | -0.201 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 28 | 15.39 ± 4.96 | -0.192 | 26 | 15.66 ± 4.93 | -0.071 | 0.843 | -0.080 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 71 | 21.80 ± 6.69 | 69 | 22.09 ± 6.69 | 0.802 | -0.074 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 28 | 22.24 ± 5.72 | -0.115 | 26 | 22.80 ± 5.69 | -0.187 | 0.719 | -0.146 |
resilisnce | 1st | 71 | 16.25 ± 4.63 | 69 | 17.13 ± 4.63 | 0.264 | -0.319 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 28 | 16.36 ± 4.02 | -0.039 | 26 | 18.73 ± 4.00 | -0.580 | 0.032 | -0.860 |
social_provision | 1st | 71 | 13.11 ± 2.89 | 69 | 14.03 ± 2.89 | 0.063 | -0.502 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 28 | 12.59 ± 2.57 | 0.287 | 26 | 14.20 ± 2.56 | -0.095 | 0.022 | -0.885 |
els_value_living | 1st | 71 | 16.59 ± 3.19 | 69 | 17.35 ± 3.19 | 0.163 | -0.406 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 28 | 16.84 ± 2.75 | -0.131 | 26 | 17.87 ± 2.74 | -0.283 | 0.166 | -0.558 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 71 | 12.37 ± 3.39 | 69 | 13.14 ± 3.39 | 0.176 | -0.501 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 28 | 12.84 ± 2.68 | -0.304 | 26 | 13.49 ± 2.66 | -0.224 | 0.369 | -0.421 |
els | 1st | 71 | 28.96 ± 6.01 | 69 | 30.49 ± 6.01 | 0.133 | -0.543 | ||
els | 2nd | 28 | 29.66 ± 4.79 | -0.248 | 26 | 31.35 ± 4.75 | -0.304 | 0.194 | -0.600 |
social_connect | 1st | 71 | 26.73 ± 9.61 | 69 | 26.19 ± 9.61 | 0.738 | 0.118 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 28 | 27.90 ± 7.72 | -0.253 | 26 | 23.67 ± 7.66 | 0.545 | 0.044 | 0.916 |
shs_agency | 1st | 71 | 13.97 ± 5.16 | 69 | 14.77 ± 5.16 | 0.362 | -0.308 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 28 | 14.06 ± 4.20 | -0.034 | 26 | 15.64 ± 4.17 | -0.338 | 0.166 | -0.613 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 71 | 15.75 ± 4.02 | 69 | 16.39 ± 4.02 | 0.344 | -0.321 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 28 | 15.98 ± 3.27 | -0.116 | 26 | 16.55 ± 3.25 | -0.081 | 0.519 | -0.286 |
shs | 1st | 71 | 29.72 ± 8.76 | 69 | 31.16 ± 8.76 | 0.332 | -0.344 | ||
shs | 2nd | 28 | 30.04 ± 7.03 | -0.077 | 26 | 32.18 ± 6.97 | -0.243 | 0.264 | -0.509 |
esteem | 1st | 71 | 12.65 ± 1.56 | 69 | 12.58 ± 1.56 | 0.796 | 0.056 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 28 | 12.67 ± 1.50 | -0.020 | 26 | 12.75 ± 1.50 | -0.142 | 0.844 | -0.066 |
mlq_search | 1st | 71 | 14.70 ± 3.48 | 69 | 14.97 ± 3.48 | 0.651 | -0.113 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 28 | 14.90 ± 3.17 | -0.085 | 26 | 14.93 ± 3.16 | 0.019 | 0.978 | -0.010 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 71 | 13.38 ± 4.19 | 69 | 13.65 ± 4.19 | 0.701 | -0.111 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 28 | 13.59 ± 3.61 | -0.086 | 26 | 13.94 ± 3.59 | -0.120 | 0.718 | -0.145 |
mlq | 1st | 71 | 28.08 ± 6.94 | 69 | 28.62 ± 6.94 | 0.647 | -0.127 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 28 | 28.51 ± 6.08 | -0.100 | 26 | 28.89 ± 6.05 | -0.064 | 0.815 | -0.092 |
empower | 1st | 71 | 18.97 ± 4.28 | 69 | 19.61 ± 4.28 | 0.380 | -0.304 | ||
empower | 2nd | 28 | 19.22 ± 3.46 | -0.117 | 26 | 19.34 ± 3.43 | 0.128 | 0.895 | -0.059 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 71 | 14.48 ± 2.50 | 69 | 14.62 ± 2.50 | 0.733 | -0.081 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 28 | 14.42 ± 2.32 | 0.034 | 26 | 15.10 ± 2.32 | -0.268 | 0.282 | -0.383 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 71 | 11.96 ± 3.16 | 69 | 11.22 ± 3.16 | 0.168 | 0.419 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 28 | 11.65 ± 2.68 | 0.172 | 26 | 11.14 ± 2.66 | 0.044 | 0.481 | 0.291 |
sss_affective | 1st | 71 | 10.03 ± 3.50 | 69 | 9.81 ± 3.50 | 0.715 | 0.114 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 28 | 10.17 ± 2.94 | -0.073 | 26 | 8.76 ± 2.92 | 0.553 | 0.079 | 0.740 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 71 | 9.89 ± 3.72 | 69 | 9.43 ± 3.72 | 0.472 | 0.220 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 28 | 9.87 ± 3.14 | 0.006 | 26 | 8.70 ± 3.12 | 0.359 | 0.168 | 0.573 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 71 | 8.24 ± 3.70 | 69 | 8.14 ± 3.70 | 0.880 | 0.047 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 28 | 8.92 ± 3.11 | -0.338 | 26 | 7.45 ± 3.09 | 0.345 | 0.083 | 0.731 |
sss | 1st | 71 | 28.15 ± 10.13 | 69 | 27.39 ± 10.13 | 0.656 | 0.152 | ||
sss | 2nd | 28 | 28.89 ± 8.22 | -0.146 | 26 | 25.01 ± 8.16 | 0.473 | 0.084 | 0.771 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(180.09) = -0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.25)
2st
t(177.14) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.96)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(174.03) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.10)
2st
t(171.95) = 1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.41)
ras_confidence
1st
t(156.28) = 0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.14)
2st
t(173.80) = 1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.88)
ras_willingness
1st
t(156.79) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.97)
2st
t(173.25) = 1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.91)
ras_goal
1st
t(160.70) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.55)
2st
t(170.20) = 2.74, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (0.57 to 3.55)
ras_reliance
1st
t(154.57) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.41)
2st
t(175.91) = 2.24, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.78)
ras_domination
1st
t(169.77) = -1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.29)
2st
t(169.74) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.11)
symptom
1st
t(147.99) = 0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-3.15 to 3.17)
2st
t(184.70) = -0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-5.10 to 2.76)
slof_work
1st
t(154.09) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.26 to 0.92)
2st
t(176.60) = -0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.90)
slof_relationship
1st
t(153.74) = 0.60, p = 0.549, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.60)
2st
t(177.10) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.37 to 4.90)
satisfaction
1st
t(157.28) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.63)
2st
t(172.76) = 1.06, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.54 to 5.10)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(152.96) = 0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.78)
2st
t(178.29) = 0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.08)
mhc_social
1st
t(158.45) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.59)
2st
t(171.71) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.92)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(157.52) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.52)
2st
t(172.52) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.51 to 3.63)
resilisnce
1st
t(159.33) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.42)
2st
t(171.04) = 2.17, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.21 to 4.52)
social_provision
1st
t(162.33) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.88)
2st
t(169.49) = 2.31, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.99)
els_value_living
1st
t(158.48) = 1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.82)
2st
t(171.68) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.51)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(150.01) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.91)
2st
t(183.36) = 0.90, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.09)
els
1st
t(150.72) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.54)
2st
t(182.09) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.87 to 4.26)
social_connect
1st
t(151.40) = -0.33, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.75 to 2.67)
2st
t(180.89) = -2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-8.37 to -0.11)
shs_agency
1st
t(152.68) = 0.91, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.52)
2st
t(178.73) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.84)
shs_pathway
1st
t(152.55) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.99)
2st
t(178.95) = 0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.18 to 2.32)
shs
1st
t(151.21) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.49 to 4.37)
2st
t(181.22) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.62 to 5.89)
esteem
1st
t(176.51) = -0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.45)
2st
t(173.81) = 0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.88)
mlq_search
1st
t(166.32) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.43)
2st
t(168.99) = 0.03, p = 0.978, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.73)
mlq_presence
1st
t(158.45) = 0.38, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.67)
2st
t(171.70) = 0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.29)
mlq
1st
t(160.53) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.85)
2st
t(170.29) = 0.23, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.65)
empower
1st
t(151.87) = 0.88, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.07)
2st
t(180.08) = 0.13, p = 0.895, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.97)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(169.79) = 0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.98)
2st
t(169.75) = 1.08, p = 0.282, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.93)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(156.62) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.31)
2st
t(173.42) = -0.71, p = 0.481, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.92)
sss_affective
1st
t(155.47) = -0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.95)
2st
t(174.76) = -1.77, p = 0.079, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.17)
sss_behavior
1st
t(156.23) = -0.72, p = 0.472, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.79)
2st
t(173.86) = -1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.86 to 0.50)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(155.43) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.14)
2st
t(174.80) = -1.74, p = 0.083, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.20)
sss
1st
t(152.30) = -0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-4.15 to 2.62)
2st
t(179.35) = -1.74, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-8.28 to 0.53)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(90.53) = 2.07, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.02 to 0.96)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(82.12) = 0.77, p = 0.884, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.52)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(64.82) = 2.37, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.35)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(65.23) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.83)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(68.51) = 2.18, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.12)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(63.48) = 3.34, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.55 to 2.21)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(77.23) = 2.55, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.97)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(59.24) = -1.39, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.68)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(63.10) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.44)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(62.83) = 0.96, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.43)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(65.63) = 1.04, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.31)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(62.24) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.21)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(66.59) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.00)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(65.82) = 0.71, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.73)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(67.33) = 2.21, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(69.95) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.12)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(66.62) = 1.07, p = 0.575, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.51)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(60.05) = 0.83, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.18)
els
1st vs 2st
t(60.57) = 1.13, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.38)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(61.07) = -2.03, p = 0.093, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.00 to -0.04)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(62.03) = 1.27, p = 0.421, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.26)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(61.93) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.23)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(60.93) = 0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.23 to 3.27)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(85.30) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.78)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(73.69) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.17)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(66.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.58)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(68.36) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.48)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(61.42) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.85)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(77.25) = 1.05, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.39)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(65.10) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.86)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(64.18) = -2.08, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.06 to -0.04)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(64.78) = -1.36, p = 0.360, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.83 to 0.35)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(64.15) = -1.30, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.37)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(61.74) = -1.77, p = 0.164, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.07 to 0.31)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(89.05) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(81.01) = -0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.68)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(64.41) = 0.94, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.17)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(64.80) = -1.60, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.12)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(67.95) = -0.94, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.52)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(63.11) = 0.84, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.13)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(76.32) = -0.75, p = 0.911, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.52)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(59.09) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.52 to 1.79)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(62.74) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.93)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(62.49) = -1.10, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.71)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(65.18) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.55 to 2.65)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(61.91) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.26)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(66.11) = 0.75, p = 0.906, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.35)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(65.37) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.38)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(66.82) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.50)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(69.34) = -1.14, p = 0.517, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.39)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(66.14) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(59.80) = 1.17, p = 0.492, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.28)
els
1st vs 2st
t(60.30) = 0.96, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.16)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(60.78) = 0.98, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.56)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(61.71) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.42)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(61.61) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.27)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(60.65) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.85 to 2.49)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(84.05) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.61)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(72.93) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.37)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(66.11) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(67.81) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.56)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(61.12) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.33)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(76.35) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.82)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(64.67) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.60)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(63.78) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.11)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(64.36) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.04)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(63.76) = 1.32, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.71)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(61.43) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.32)
Plot
